|
NeedToUseYou -> RE: You Know Your Internet?...It`s About To Change For The Worse (8/9/2010 10:23:53 PM)
|
Well, from what I've read so far, it's bad wrapped in good.
My understanding is that they are proposing special treatment for some types of content, while I do see some necessity for this, it needs to be highly documented, and only for services that are in the public interest, such as hospital applications, electricity grid management type applications, Emergency communication, etc... They give some of those examples but don't appear to formalize it. It definitely should not give special treatment to any Entertainment type application, or generalized commercial activity.
Also, they say nothing applies to wireless, which is complete bullshit, because that is growing very fast, and many predict wireless internet will eventually be what most use in the future. As in your ipad type device, or car internet, smartphone, even wireless vending machines reporting back sales and status, the future is largely wireless, IMO. So, it's ridiculous that no type of neutral treatment should be applied in that domain.
I'm still trying to get at the intentions of it all from google's standpoint, Verizon's is easy to decipher, as in they want to milk all that wireless traffic, without a doubt. They still want to charge 60 dollars for 5 gigs of data a month for wireless with a 2 year contract. What a joke.
If the Services would be clearly and wholly defined that would receive possible special treatment, and it applied to any internet traffic, whether by line, or wireless, I could see this as reasonable. But it's to vague, and doesn't apply to the future growth area of the internet. (wireless).
So, Evil, I don't know, it's not good though.
Also, this line is disturbing. "which ensure that consumers have access to all legal content on the Internet". I don't think it is the business of google, or verizon to pull access to anything really. If something needs pulled the government should simply order the disconnection of the server/s or take control of the domain name after going through actual legal channels. Google and Verizon aren't in charge of enforcing / monitoring / or writing the law, they are supposed to comply in the realm of what is theirs, but not enforce without some legal authority telling them to on a case by case basis. Beyond that Google hosts m/billions of copyrighted works, without express permission, they walk a thin line getting uppity in regards to "legal content" issues. They crawl collarchat.com without permission,(cache:collarchat.com in google) I presume, sure you can use robots file to tell them not to but that is not the same as giving legal permission or not. As in I don't have to expressly state do not copy my stuff, in order for the default implication to be, you don't have the right. I also as an individual of minimal power, could not get away of making a complete or partial copy of collarchat.com and displaying it in full form, fair use would not cover that application.
So, whatever. Stupid.. Really.
It needs rewritten to include wireless, and to be very specific, in what type of applications would get different treatment, and those as a default should only be those that are completely in the realm of public interest.
Google also needs to check itself before it swallows itself, in it's own legally ambiguous activities, as is google holds more copyrighted content for display on it's servers than the whole bittorrent network, between, webpages, pdfs, docs, etc... Are they a special case? It would be different if they simply stored the data for analysis and showed a snippet, without displaying whole unchanged works(websites,documents), but that is not the case for the cache: function.
Anyway, still confused, what google thinks it will get out of this. All they have is their reputation really. If the perception swings to much, well, those billions disappear quickly, it isn't like they are microsoft, and have a billion machines, and users that are to one degree or another trapped to their product. www.google.com versus www.bing.com or www.scroogle.com or www.yahoo.co or www.nextsearchengine.com is not that difficult a change.
|
|
|
|
